CNN The Situation Room-Transcript

CNN THE SITUATION ROOM

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: They insist, the White House, the attorney general and others that four democrats and four republicans have repeatedly been briefed on this program since it was enacted and there really were -- there was no outrage expressed during those meetings.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Well, let me say a few things, Wolf, first. The people who were briefed said they were not told anything about the details. It was just sort of mentioned in passing. They didn't say, hey, we have a new program, this is a very new approach and we want to brief you about it and here's what we're doing. But more importantly than that, no one has suggested that the program end. I fully support the president having all the powers he needs to protect us, the question is not whether we have strength, but whether we have can strength, security, and rule of law. And that's the question here...

BLITZER: If the White House were to say, Senator, let's just put it all in new legislation, keep everything the status quo, as it's been going on, would you vote for that legislation?

SCHUMER: In all likelihood, yes, of course, no one knows exactly what the program is. He says it has careful controls. If it does and if it's as he describes it, yes, I would vote for it, obviously. You know, Wolf, whenever there's a balance between security and liberty there should be open discussion, there should be set rules and a judge, an independent arbiter sort of looking over the shoulder of the executive to make sure nobody is abusing it. But nobody, nobody I've heard in this community or in the Senate wants to deprive the president of powers he needs. We just want to do it so it's done in a way that's consist with the law not by fiat.

BLITZER: We're told that General Michael Hayden, who was the director of the National Security Agency, now the deputy director for National Intelligence that when the president said after 9/11 "what do you need to protect the American people," he came up with this idea. He's a career professional, he's a four-star general. Did he go too far?

SCHUMER: I don't think he went too far. I think it's the president and his people who went too far and instead of coming to Congress and saying, hey, we need these changes, we can't work within the existing law, which everyone believed was very successful in allowing wiretaps. We need some changes in the post-9/11 world and he would have gotten them.

BLITZER: You know what, we're also told by White House officials, senior White House officials, that they did say, the vice president and others when they were briefing the so-called "gang of eight," these four democrats and four republicans, should we go forward and change it. There was a consensus that should not happen because that could reveal the sensitivity, the nature of this program.

SCHUMER: We've dealt with very sensitive programs, the FISA law, other kinds of things very well, and here's the issue, no one knows, everyone agrees that we need the kind of security. No one knows if this program is being abused. When we asked attorney general Gonzales today, what are their abuses, might is lead to wiretapping of people who had no connection to Al Qaeda, he said he couldn't answer those questions.

So, the issue here is very, very simple. It's not, have the program or not have the program. It is, rather, have the program with the kinds of balance of power that we've always had, the kinds of checks and balances. Or don't have it at all. And I asked Secretary Gonzales, well, what would be the next step, the president just secretly allows homes to be searched without a warrant. The president secretly allows people to be stopped and -- and followed without warrants? These make no sense if they're American citizens. So we can have both and that's what distinguishes us from our enemies. And that is that we have strength and security, but we also have rule of law. So the issue here is not strength or security, there's unanimity. And I'd say one other thing, Wolf, four of 10 republicans who were on the committee today asked very skeptical questions about this plan. It was not partisan like the Alito hearings. It was much more bipartisan in terms of people having sincere and real questions.

BLITZER: Senator Schumer thanks for joining us.

SCHUMER: Did I lose him?

BLITZER: No, no, no you just lost your (INAUDIBLE), you earplug...

SCHUMER: Yeah, yeah, it just came out.

BLITZER: The only thing you lost was my thank you to you. Thanks very much for joining us.

SCHUMER: Thanks Wolf.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/